HANDS OF STONE Review

More than anything Hands of Stone is frustrating because there is clearly a large scale to the film and real ambition from both writer/director Jonathan Jakubowicz and the entire cast, but as is true with many a biopics Hands of Stone tries to do and tell its audience too much in too short a time span inadvertently making the film more about a series of events than the characters participating in those events. In theory this is supposed to be a movie about the relationship between Panamanian boxer Roberto Durán (Edgar Ramírez) and legendary trainer Ray Arcel (Robert De Niro) and while this goal is communicated well enough and understood there are so many extraneous things going on around the two central characters the film becomes distracted by its own plot strands. The word I'm looking for is "scattershot." Hands of Stone is a broad strokes approach to the biopic, but in being so it communicates such key elements in haphazard ways thus forcing the audience to not invest as much as they should or even want to. Granted, the film does certain things right as this viewer in particular had no prior knowledge of Durán or his story yet I was immediately interested in the real life events the film was depicting. That is all to say the film is a little all over the place. This especially becomes true after the film effortlessly builds to Durán's first bout with Sugar Ray Leonard (Usher Raymond) and completes that fight within the first hour of the film. While the film could have certainly told us all we needed to know about Durán through the lens of his Sugar Ray fights and all of the drama those entailed Hands of Stone instead feels the need to go further by not only telling us Durán's story as a boxer, but his story as a Panamanian activist, Arcel's story that deals with the New York City mob and a long-lost daughter even going as far to include Leonard's perspective on certain things. Add in the familial drama that Durán creates and deals in with wife Felicidad Iglesias (Ana de Armas) and their five children and there is enough material here for an HBO miniseries. Unfortunately, Hands of Stone is a feature film that clocks in under two hours and while it carries real momentum in the first hour leading up to that first showdown with Sugar Ray that energy is largely lost in the second half of the film leaving us with a movie that might have been something really special and unique did it not try so desperately to adhere to the worn-out sports drama template.

FANTASTIC FOUR Review

Origin stories have become something of such trite exercises that when we are given something slightly different we're not sure what to do with it. That isn't to say director Josh Trank's (Chronicle) approach to his Fantastic Four reboot is necessarily a strong or even distinct one, but it is something. It certainly isn't what people would necessarily want or expect (that will be saved for the sequel if they're granted the opportunity to make one) given this film is more of a prelude than anything else, but there is much to appreciate. At a brisk hour and forty minutes I like that Trank's Fantastic Four doesn't take itself too seriously while consistently trying to remain as logical as possible. There is a sense of experimentation to the proceedings, a sense that tells us even the makers of the movie don't necessarily place too much importance on the going-ons of the plot, but are instead more interested in putting a few players on a certain kind of board and seeing what works and what doesn't. In coming at Marvel's first family of superheroes in this fashion it is obvious that Trank and his uber-talented and charismatic cast aren't actively trying to make something bad or even obligatory, but rather it's fairly clear they want the opposite. Things may not have turned out as well as they'd hoped in this initial run, but I have a sincere hope they get another shot to work out the kinks and to test their experiment again given it will contain more of the elements audiences want/expect from their superhero movies. I'm not going to completely trash Fantastic Four for trying to do something different with a story we saw on screen ten years ago. This is a story the board at 20th Century Fox likely insisted on Trank and screenwriter Simon Kinberg (X-Men: Days of Future Past) telling purely for the sake of retaining their rights to the characters and no doubt interlocking with their X-Men franchise at some point down the road. And I'm not looking for anyone to blame for the shortcomings of the final product because while there certainly could have been a more clear, precise vision for the film I kind of dug what we have here in terms of tone and character dynamic and only hope they have a chance to develop each further.

ST. VINCENT Review

St. Vincent is formula, but it's damn affecting formula. As soon as we meet the titular curmudgeon followed by the set-up that requires him to watch over the new neighbor kid we know where things are going. This is a film though that epitomizes the saying, "it's not about where you're going, it's about how you get there." There is nothing new to find in the intentions of the story or even in the way it is executed. Everything you will take away from St. Vincent is because of the characters, their individual arcs and how it comes together to not necessarily paint a pretty picture, but a humbling one. We are in a day and age where this, in many ways, feels like the culmination of Bill Murray's master plan. He has so effortlessly (or it at least seems that way) become more of a figure, a myth than that of an actual being that we find real value in seeing him let loose as much as he does here. There have only been a few occasions over the last decade or so where the legendary actor and comic has allowed himself this much visibility and unlike 2012's odd Hyde Park on Hudson this sees him in a role that is able to be more widely appreciated. You will recognize the schtick Murray is playing because he's done it before, but that doesn't make it any less fun to watch or when his stage of life and career are taken into consideration, any less affecting. I say affecting again because despite the fact we know where the film is going and we know what it wants us to feel it is still able to achieve a genuine emotional reaction from the audience and for that alone, the film deserves credit. It is also to the films credit that it doesn't overstay its welcome and allows the actors to flourish in their roles bringing the intended ideas to the surface and moving the audience in just the right way to where we are fine with the manipulation it is pulling over on us. St. Vincent is a crowd-pleaser in the biggest and best sense of the word in that it is a film I realize could be taken as overly-sentimental or even hokey, but that I could watch over and over again and still find reasons to smile every time. Sometimes, you need a film like that and St. Vincent would make a wonderful default to turn to for, if nothing else, the showcase it allows Murray.